Posted on 02/02/2004 5:58:33 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
I have always been amazed at the ability of the Christian right to bully educators into diluting the teaching of evolution and promoting so-called creation science in public school classrooms. I suspect that part of the reason for this is a misappreciation of the importance of evolution by the general public. Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent. Can you imagine asking a physics teacher to cover everything except Newton's laws? Maybe soon a small group of reactionaries will persuade a school board to teach students that apples do not fall to earth because of gravity, but because of some mystical phenomenon that can neither be studied nor understood. ALBERT E. PRICE New Haven, Jan. 30, 2004 The writer is a research fellow, department of cell biology, Yale University School of Medicine.
I'll have to remember that one!
Not really. Not at all.
You might read Not by Chance for a discussion of the probabilities involved. I remember being taught in college that there is a small probabililty that when you release a stone, it will go up. But one ought not to expect such a result. Spetner essentially shows that stones should be falling up all over the place by comparison with the probabilities that any macroevolution actually occurred. (my characterization)
It's not consistent with our notion of chromosome pairs either. We have 23 pairs. It's pretty hard to evolve "gradually over a long time" from 22 (or 24).
ML/NJ
Can you prove "the code evolved, probably from initial RNA assemblies that occurred?"
The probability that the stone will go up(against gravity) is zero. The physics give a poisson error distribution. That means the measurement + error will always be greater than zero and in the direction of the field. Also, the probability that a particle, or quanta will traverse an infinite barrier is zero.
"Not by Chance"
It's not a discussion. It's a $10 book. A worthwhile treatise on the subject would be worth considerably over $200. For $10 that's what I would expect-the equivalent of stones falling upward. For your information there is not enough known to even begin plugging in believable numbers. That's because their aren't enough known details.
"It's pretty hard to evolve "gradually over a long time" from 22 (or 24)."
Hard notwithstanding, it happened.
AFAICS, nothing.
I have to agree with you there. What I should have said in my original post is that abstract math, (is it trig?) is a necessary pre-requisite for organic chemistry...a bad analogy on my part.
Your use of that word -- which means insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt -- indicates that you have a faith.
Maybe so, but weren't we discussing the relevance of evolution on biology training?
You have faith that the unproven is not unprovable.
I am content to consider macro-evolution a plausible theory with holes, and repercussions extending only to the academic questions of biology. I, for practical matters, take it for granted. My theological views have no dependence on macroevolution.
So I say teach it in class, but let's be realistic about its implications. Grand conclusions on the meaning of existence should be left to the philosophers and theologians.
The contention here derives from the ability for each side to poke the other in the eye with the lack of evidence for their conclusions.
I sense smug satisfaction on the side of the atheists to say, 'ha ha stupid ignorant Jesus-freak, guess what, evolution obviates your god.'
While the other side mocks the evolutionists for lack of rigor.
As I see it, macroevolution doesn't argue against God, nor is evolution unscientific, but with a lack of data there's a lot of room for hand-waving.
The argument for macroevolution is not unlike the argument for global warming. It's a plausible scenario based on the micro-evidence scaled up to macro. I can show you natural selection in fruit flies, and I can show you that CO2 absorbs radiation in the lab. But the evidence is lacking (to thoroughly prove or disprove) the complex macro case with many unknowns, so human psychology rules the argument.
I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but I meant the species are unique, though exactly how they are classified I would leave to biologists; and that man is a higher order creation than animals, and was created essentially as he is today.
No. What you have written means that the unproven is provable. This is not a true statement, because it includes all unproven statements and indicates they are provable. Faith is limited to those things that are unprovable.
Today, you're Always Wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.